Over the last decade a slow motion drama has been unfolding between fundraisers and the public they want to fundraise from.

Fundraisers have to raise more amounts to fund the work of their organisations, but have blocked their ears to people telling them that they don't like fundraising techniques. We have told ourselves that mild irritation is an acceptable price to pay for raising money that changes lives – that the end justifies the means.

People tell us stories of being "besieged", multiple mailings and telephone calls at home. Face-to-face fundraising now acts as a loathsome villain for the whole of fundraising. However, face-to-face is just the tip of the iceberg.

Modern fundraising techniques can be hugely successful, but the very basis of that success is also the basis of the irritation. It literally and metaphorically stops people in their tracks. Research we are releasing this week shows that face-to-face is third on the list of irritation for potential donors, after fundraising "on your doorstep" and "telephone calls at home".

Will we still have this win/lose dynamic in five or 10 years' time? Will the fundraising community going on accepting irritation as a necessary by-product of modern fundraising. I don't think we should. Aside from all the evidence we gather, two incidents for me have been critical.

In the past, our company has bought a couple of balloons in a virtual fundraising balloon race. This autumn, for no major reason, I decided not to take part. The charity has my mobile number, so when they ring me – and the number comes on my screen – I ignore the calls. At a guess they have rung me about 30 times. This feels to me like a bombardment. Should we accept that its OK for a member of the public to be called 30 times without a response. When is enough, enough?

The second experience came from a conversation with my dad. He's a retired doctor, active in his community and a donor to many charities. On a long car journey he told me about his frustration with the number of appeals, and asked whether the economics of repeated mailings stacks up. He told me there was only one charity that has asked how often he wants to hear from them: Botton Village in North Yorkshire.

It so happens that I first heard about this charity on the fundraising circuit in the early 1990s. For all the talk of being donor-centric and listening to supporters, only one (tiny) charity has been brave and far-sighted over the last 25 years to consistently ask its supporters what they want – and doing so have been building loyalty and saving on their mailing expenses. How depressing.

What is the fundraising community doing about this? The Institute of Fundraising's codes, the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association and the Fundraising Standards Board, are a huge achievement and make me proud. But if every charity kept to every code would public irritation diminish or disappear? My heart says yes, but my head says no.

We need to do more.

Some simple opt-out solutions

• An 'I don't give on the street' label pin. The telephone preference service (TPS) allows people to opt out of cold calls from anybody. We need some kind of visible symbol that people can wear which basically says 'I don't give to street fundraisers' – a kind of TPS on the street. Street fundraisers would need to agree to simply ignore anybody wearing the badge. Individuals would need to buy their label pin and my guess is that only those who were really wound up by 'chugging' would religiously wear one.

• An 'I don't give on the doorstep' sticker. If people don't want to give on the doorstep they should be allowed to opt out just as they are able with the telephone. A simple sticker in the front window, as there used to be with free newspapers would suffice. FRSB membership means charities should ask their donors what they want. I think every fundraising direct marketing team that aspires to good practice should ask their donors how often they want to hear from them. Simple as that. This might mean a donor says they don't want raffle tickets, or they only want to hear back at Xmas or in emergencies.

I realise that if these three proposals were implemented they would reduce the number of people who give. That makes me pause for thought. I know that fundraisers talk about the right to fundraise' and the corollary of that is the right to say that certain types of fundraising aren't for me.

The fundraising community needs to accept that the level of annoyance and aggravation felt about fundraising needs to be reduced. The current level is not sustainable, nor is it good for the reputation of fundraising. These three suggestions would provide a simple way in which people can opt out of being asked, and through which charities could begin to reduce the pressure cooker of frustration that many people feel. We should aim for the maximum reduction in aggravation for the minimum reduction in income. We owe it to our donors and our industry to strive for nothing less.